Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–118 of 118 posts

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#111

Post by danbmil99 »

tapp wrote: post #107
credo wrote: post #41

Arrington frames it as a matter of "editorial independence" and doesn't talk about ethics and conflict of interests. However, I don't see how anyone else (and least of all, the owners of TechCrunch) can ignore those two matters - and the resultant impact on the credibility of TechCrunch. Ultimately, Arrington made a conscious decision to sell TechCrunch to AOL. He made another conscious decision to become the founder…

> It seems like he is ready to finally leave TechCrunch, but doesn't want to frame it as a simple matter of leaving TechCrunch to become a full-time investor I wonder about this. Even if you accept the premise that his priority is now his fund, it seems like Mike's formally leaving TechCrunch could have a nontrivial impact on "CrunchFund's" deal flow?

> Mike's formally leaving TechCrunch could have a nontrivial impact on "CrunchFund's" deal flow?

No, he's a brand unto himself and he knows it, and is cashing in on that in an admirable way (from a game-theory perspective at least)

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#112

Post by marcamillion »

Like Arrington/TC or not, it is hard to deny that since the AOL acquisition that TC has gone above and beyond to make sure they assert their independence.

It's very interesting to see the internal politics spill out on the main page, and it's fascinating to see the struggle between the competing entities after an acquisition.

I think many/most other media acquisitions would have squashed this - imagine any of News Corp media outlets EVER writing/reporting a negative story about News Corp, and the same would go for NBC and MSNBC of GE, and all the others.

I must say, although it can be construed as just grandstanding and attention grabbing, Mike and the TC team have gotten a few extra points from me over these episodes.

Sure, they may have overdone it at times, but it couldn't have been easy for Arrington to stand by and watch his reporters str8 up tell his new overlords "Fuck Off" (literally - one of TC's bloggers tweeted that, can't remember which one).

Glad to see them publicly wrestle with their independence. There is something brave about doing it in public.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#113

Post by Eliezer »

9999 wrote: post #71
mikek wrote: post #14

Am I the only one who sides with Arrington? I feel that TechCrunch has taken editorial ethics seriously so far, and see no reason why this shouldn't continue.

The capital J Journalist folks that MG Siegler referenced in his piece earlier have found TechCrunch's position on editorial ethics so laughable that it's almost hard to quantify the gulf between their expectations and the piddling concessions TechCrunch has offered over the years. I lived with a capital J journalist for a long time and got to know a lot of his coworkers and contacts, and I was really quite surprised…

You ever actually been reported on by a "capital J journalist"? Their quality standards look a whole lot different when you're the one being reported on.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#114

Post by flarg »

danbmil99 wrote: post #111
tapp wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems like he is ready to finally leave TechCrunch, but doesn't want to frame it as a simple matter of leaving TechCrunch to become a full-time investor I wonder about this. Even if you accept the premise that his priority is now his fund, it seems like Mike's formally leaving TechCrunch could have a nontrivial impact on "CrunchFund's" deal flow?

> Mike's formally leaving TechCrunch could have a nontrivial impact on "CrunchFund's" deal flow? No, he's a brand unto himself and he knows it, and is cashing in on that in an admirable way (from a game-theory perspective at least)

I second that; Arrington has always been a player.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#115

Post by josteink »

anonfortc wrote: post #20

This is so much fun. It seems that we now have a fight between two divas -- Arrington and Huffington. It is one of those fights where you do not care who wins, you just hope for lots of bloodshed. It's like a Raiders Broncos game! So Mike Arrington makes a stand for editorial independence. Now for those of you new to this whole discussion, we should note that Mike editorial independence Arrington started this whole b…

Now I would like to say I am not on Ariana's side. I wanted to point out the blatant hypocracy of Arringrton

Anyone who knows a fair bit history around Techcrunch would assume this by default.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#117

Post by j_baker »

If Aol cannot accept either of these options, and no other creative solution can be found, I cannot be a part of TechCrunch going forward.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure AOL just told Arrington they didn't want him to have any significant role at TechCrunch going forward.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#118

Post by philwelch »

9999 wrote: post #110
philwelch wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's traditional journalism, but traditional journalism is going out of business. Tabloids and demagoguery are an easier sell for dumb audiences, and smart audiences can deal with bias, so there's only a niche market left for impartial journalism. We certainly can't expect it to remain the predominant paradigm. You and I may think there's something seedy and questionable about writing for a trashy tabloid, but it's…

Tabloids and demagoguery have existed for as long as real journalism. I think it's odd to think that either one is going to replace the other entirely, although it certainly seems that at times one is more prevalent. Every era has its Creelman and Hearst, but most have their Menckens and Pulitzers too. The New York Times' article about Arrington's questionable ethics was written with the general public in mind, most…

I don't think anyone can afford to be naive anymore. Even traditional journalism, by and large, was a sham--the "impartial" news media is still biased for the most part, they're just better at hiding it under a veneer of professionalism.
Post reply on HN